England's Obscenity Trial of the Decade is over, with unanimous Not Guilty verdicts being returned for all 6 charges. R v Peacock was a rare outing for the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and its out-lawing of media which depraves and corrupts, and despite being shown DVDs of explicit homosexual acts, fisting, testicular torture, rape scenes, prolaspses and other acts the prosecution described as extreme the jury decided the material didn't breech the law. Alex d. live tweeted the proceeding and Peacock's supprters are celebratory. The question now is what is obscene in today's society, and is the act still relevant. [more inside]
posted by samworm
on Jan 6, 2012 -
25 comments

Warning: Explicit sexual content. "These firefighters dedicated their lives to save the lives of others. They did not sign on to become unwilling props to a controversial political and social agenda," says Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, representing a group of brave men in uniform who were subjected to "vile sexual taunts" at a San Diego gay pride parade. Via Gawker.
posted by digaman
on Aug 8, 2007 -
339 comments

Another reason to practice safe sex? Man meets woman. Man has oral sex with woman. Woman keeps the sperm, uses it to impregnate herself, then sues for child support. Man counter-sues for emotional distress and "sperm theft". Although the emotional distress claim is still active, the "sperm theft" claim was dismissed. On that point, the court decided:
When plaintiff "delivered" his sperm, it was a gift -- an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee... There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.
posted by halekon
on Feb 26, 2005 -
87 comments

Sex between teenagers is illegal in Wisconsin. "Sex between kids is not legal," said Assistant District Attorney Lori Kornblum, who is prosecuting the case. According to the law, "Whoever has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 is guilty of a Class C felony." There is no mention of consent. The boy's attorney will argue that children's privacy rights include the right to make "important decisions."
posted by Durwood
on Aug 21, 2003 -
92 comments

Is this your fetus? Are you the one I slept with? Remember when we discussed this before? Florida has now been forced by 4 plaintiffs and the ACLU to repeal the so-called Scarlet Letter law that forces women who are pregnant and giving children up for adoption to take out an ad local papers once a week for 4 weeks, stating her name and her sexual history in the last year, to let men know if they *might* be the father. Here is the ACLU legal brief. The details about the decision are in the first link.
Thank god for the ACLU.
posted by aacheson
on Apr 25, 2003 -
46 comments

Dildo's illegal in Texas? Apparently so. Let me get this straight... in a state where you can carry loaded firearms on your hip, if you get caught with more than 6 dildos or other "pleasure devices", it's a FELONY? Absolutely amazing. Texas is like a whole other country. It also helps explain a lot. (via obscurestore)
posted by Ynoxas
on Nov 22, 2002 -
78 comments

make sure she really means "yes"... consent condoms are an interesting twist on using condoms in a causal sex environment. the man hands a package to his partner containing a condom and a card which takes her fingerprints and lets her tear off the date for which the condom is to be used. one's to wonder if all casual sex will be conducted like this in the future.
posted by boogah
on Feb 25, 2002 -
33 comments

Fighting the CDA : The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is working with one of nations most interesting erotic photographers to overturn the portion of the CDA that ties all internet obscenity to the most restrictive definition of the most restrictive community in the nation.
posted by soulhuntre
on Dec 11, 2001 -
30 comments

"If you've got ovaries, you're a female. I'm just old fashioned." Acknowledging that there may be more to sex than chromosomes, a Kansas appeals court has overturned a lower court's ruling invalidating the marriage of a transsexual to someone of the (now) opposite sex. Some in the Kansas legislature think this is just some gay radical's way of skirting the same-sex marriage ban. There's an opposing Texas precedent that the Supreme Court refused to hear last year, so this one may go all the way. Sadly, it'll probably fall under the much-maligned equal protection clause. Anyone think this poor woman has a chance?
posted by Gilbert
on May 11, 2001 -
14 comments

Page:
1

About MetaFilter

MetaFilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.